Comments by al-rawandi

Comment #184166 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 8:10 pm

Frankus,

I am curious as to whether ASM is in fact David Irving, David Duke, Israel Shamer, or some other whackjob.

A great clue is chanced upon when you look at what other deniers believe in addition to the "hoax" business. As I pointed Israel Shamer actually believes the blood libel is true.

See here:

http://www.israelshamir.net/English/blood.htm

That is so completely ridiculous that I can't really think he is a serious human being. He was born to Jewish parents, so I assume he is an Israeli agent sent to discredit Holocaust deniers further.

Being a Holocaust denier, while claiming to be rational, must be like a person who hears voices in his head, and the only people that believe him are his fellow patients in the psych-ward. I mean really, look at the company you keep. Ernst fucking Zundel.

Then the ever sunny Ahmad Rami, twice convicted of hate speech in Sweden, and regular speaker at Swedish neo-Nazi forums. Now this ass clown runs Radio Islam, labeled "One of the most right wing anti-semitic" outlets in all of Europe. What book is in complete form in the library (online) of radio Islam?

That's right the discredited forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The hilarious thing is that he cites "Elders of Zion"as the authors! Ha, instead of "Czarist secret police" as it should be. These are ASM's friends and compatriots!

Let's not forget the other lodestar of anti-semitic bigotry... Mein Kampf.

On this site Rami claims that Ataturk was Jewish.

This is what Holcaust deniers are. This is the face of the true Holocaust denial, unmitigated hate and bigotry. Irrational and dishonest hate.

All of the above links run right to the despicable site itself. Go there and see the face of denial. The cartoons of hook nosed Jews, riding Uncle Sam like a horse. Bah.

2852. 16% of US science teachers are creationists

Comment #184156 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 7:54 pm

muhammads_horse,

It is next to impossible to fire an America teacher. Thuggish unions make it impossible. Thus we produce near retarded children.

2853. What is science for?

Comment #184148 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 7:34 pm

Blake,

Several people here have posted with regards to specific evidence.

The man you so pathetically worship, ASM, has only posted nonsense, from the websites of bigots and discredited non-scholars. When you find yourself in the company of Ahmad Rami and David Duke, you should check yourself. You claim you are a rationalist, why then do you find your co-religionists (yes Holocaust denial is a religious position) are irrational, to a man?

This doesn't perturb you? Does not the desultory nature of denial make you uneasy?

You will need to answer a few questions before I take you serious, if you answer them I can certainly begin to take you serious and won't dismiss you, but your friend the untiring village idiot ASM, has not answered....

If the Holocaust is a myth, hoax and fabrication, how come the only people to discover this have been bigots, discredited non-scholars, the mentally deranged, Islamic militants, and other assorted whackos? And many of these were more than one of these things. Let's take Israel Shamer, he is a denier, he also believes the blood libel to be true... this is on par with believing in Santa Claus. Do you also accept the Blood Libel as truth?

Eagerly awaiting reply.

Thanks.

2854. What is science for?

Comment #184145 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 7:22 pm

Listen here,

You keep citing IHR and JHR, do you understand the authors of these pieces, the people that contribute to IHR, are mostly discredited. For example Ernst Zundel was exposed precisely as a fraud, in a Canadian court. Not only was he shown to be a denier of the Holocaust (bad enough) but he was shown to be a fraud and was humiliated (I am not sure deniers even feel shame). He is below a laughing stock, as are you.

You are obviously a total idiot, there is no doubt in my mind, my only questions are:

1) Do you hate Jews?
2) Why do you come here and post, you have not won any converts, sympathizers, or even one inch of intellectual ground?

It was simply amusing when teratornis made a fool of you regarding the Dresden bombing, other than this I find you pitiful and wretched.

2855. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184141 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 7:10 pm

MaxD,

Can you get a restraining order online?

I am just going to tell him I am quite pleased with my current relationship, and I need no new paramour.

2856. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #184090 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Bonzai,

The micro management was a necessary consequence. If Marx didn't see that, he was a far larger fucktard than I originally thought.

How else does one centralize things

Notice what exactly is centralized.

2857. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184089 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 2:53 pm

righton,

Got it. I will make the correction ASAP.

Shit, i don't proof read those things :-)

2858. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #184088 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Bonzai,

Now that is just being totally dishonest. Totally. You sneak in a sly attack on capitalism but you do it in such a dishonest way. How would people "purchase" freedom? They don't live in democracies, how can they vote for freedom. It isn't about capitalism, it is about democracy. Nice try though.

And religious nuts win for a lot of reasons, one of which is lack of corruption. But they never stay popular for long.

2859. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #184083 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Bonzai,

Well I feel it may have been more ambiguous than that. But certainly every state guided by Marxism did quite a lot to shut down freedom of all kinds. Marxism requires such repression (as does socialism) because the system is unnatural, it is anti-liberty, and it is just plain oppressive. As we have demonstrated here repeatedly, it requires the state (run by whomever) to tell other human beings exactly what they can and cannot do with themselves and their own lives. This is the fatal flaw, above and beyond all other flaws. No person wants such detailed micro-management, humans are too independent for that, as a species.

2860. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184078 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Thanks,

Let me try THIS

2861. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #184077 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Let's not forget Marx's simply stupid suggestions, like moving people from urban areas to rural areas. Wht is he going to do, make everyone a farmer?

His attack on freedom of the press was another disappointing comment.

Let's be real clear here, Marx's suggestions were not practical, then or now.

2862. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184071 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 2:15 pm

I cannot maximize the posting guidelines to be able to see the instructions, that is why I asked. Can you copy those guidelines and post them up?

2863. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #184065 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Bonzai,

Let's be honest, Marx espoused nasty and vicious doctrines, full stop.

2864. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184061 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Ok how do you nest a website link into a simple word, like you did in:

"here"

to your blog? I would love to know how to do that.

2865. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184055 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 1:55 pm

mordacious1,

You can see how logical that is.

M1: "I really don't read his posts"
LGS: "You are a maggot on shit"

We should be paying for this education in logic.

2866. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184049 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Quetz,

Yes I noticed he lumped all the quotations into one blockquote, it took me a minute to figure out the context, and I fucking said it...

My guess is right now, he is digging through some posts from January, when I felt Islam wasn't inherently violent. Now I don't feel the same, but my guess is he will post it. Along with some of my earlier commentary on American foreign policy, much of which I still agree with in fact, but not analysis.

So I agree to facts, those don't change, but I do not even agree with myself (from 4 weeks ago) about some of the analysis I provided. And we won't even talk about the posts where I simply wanted to piss someone off (apologies to Ofir).

I am flattered, I have had two male devotees, _riverrun_ and "lastgreekstanding".

Hey lastgreek, just so we are clear I am NOT gay. Just an FYI.

2867. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184044 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 1:29 pm

righton,

I had exactly the same suspicion.

Just like _riverrun_ the "greek" refuses to answer direct questions, cannot stay on topic. Cannot help unrelated ad hominems.

If everything he said about everyone here WERE true, it still wouldn't change the fact that he is a dishonest little worm who has made some serious assertions and can't back them up. His mouth is writing checks his 10 horse power intellect cannot cash.

2868. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #184034 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Quetz,

I linked as popular usage (which Wikipedia is good for). And if changing your mind makes you a hypocrite (which I suppose it does to some degree) count Christopher Hitchens and myself in. I guess all the people that were once religious are hypocrites too. I change my mind about topics weekly, not only monthly. As I read something (which I do daily) it strikes me in one way or another, and then my opinion shifts. It must be an extremely special mind that is impervious to evidence, opinion, and reason.

I really don't understand his rant on my aversion to Chomsky. I have long been talking about wrongs done by the United States, but Chomsky is simply dishonest in his attempts to highlight everything as an American misdeed.

If you look at what the greek has cited from me. You will notice that I call attention to the difference between a suicide bombing and a missile strike. The suicide bombing is objectionable because the perpetrator is killed, it seems more desperate while the missile strike is less objectionable because it seems more "rational". Independent of cause and independent of effect, the acts themselves carry different weight for people.

And as regards for my position on Israel, I find its racist policies objectionable, I simply want the greek d-bag to show my why it is domestically apartheid, he couldn't do it, so instead he launches into the greatest ad hominem assault (full of decontextualization) ever mounted on the internet.

P.S.
New blog post on jihad for your reading enjoyment...

2869. Five Things Humans No Longer Need

Comment #184018 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 12:17 pm

#6 Religion.

2870. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #184004 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 11:43 am

MaxD,

Marx was a vindictive, nasty toad. No Capitalist I have ever read has shown such contemptuous disdain for a group of people, based solely on their economic condition.

Socialism produced evil because Marx espoused evil.

2871. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #184003 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 11:41 am

epeeist,

Those are all sources I read.

2872. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183988 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 11:15 am

Tez,

Marx was a spiteful little man, as evidenced by his little rant on the Jews. He felt similar animosity to those who had found success in the material world (many of whom were Jews). Marx had a certain pathology about him, and he made connections between the abstract and what he considered "Bourgeouis" society.

For instance he (not in the Manifesto, but in his other works) decried freedom of the press as a "Bourgeouis" notion. One thing can be certain, that Marx despised the Bourgeouisie, and that, in every instantiation, "Bourgeouis" is a pejorative term. Thus freedom of the press was an evil. Marriage was "bourgeouis" evil.

D'Arcy spoke of the end of private property, Marx never sought the end of private property. He only sought the end of "bourgeouis" property. He sought to punish those who held more than what he considered a "fair" amount (whatever that amount was, I will leave the destruction of that silly notion to the Sorites Paradox). If D'Arcy feels that an end to private property (all of it) would create a just society, Marx did not share this view completely.

When Marx says "Bourgeouis" he says it with absolute spite and malice. the Manifesto was a seething missive (I would have used screed, but no matter) against Marx's own enemies. Another enlightening read is his dissertation, a great window into a failed and tormented psyche.

2873. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183979 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 10:49 am

epeeist,

The Daily Mail is a tabloid, but what they said happened to be true. Like if Bin Laden told me the earth was round, I would have to agree. Benefits fraud is a problem? Understatement of the new century. There was a former terrorist (plane hijacker) living on $150,000 per year... in government benefits. Then he got a job at Heathrow checking bags. No further comment.

If people understood what their taxes were used for, and that these should be called "dues" and would help instill a sense of ownership. Also the government and its employees (read: incompetent, condescending bureaucrats) should be in the service of the people and fucking act like it. They work for the people of the country that elected them and/or pay their salary. Once these issues get rectified, people will be more encouraged to be positive participants in society. And if this were the case, tax evaders could be punished more severely.

2874. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183975 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 10:44 am

MaxD,

I have long said (on this forum) that corporate welfare is the antithesis of liberty. It is anti-libertarian, anti-American, and down right stupid.

Read the Manifesto, read the part on marriage where he claims that marriage is Bourgeouis form of communalism, which makes little to know sense. The Manifesto should be online for viewing.

2875. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183970 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 10:37 am

masterslrig,

What an unctuous little comment.

But I would love to know how you know it is the truth? I am also a seeker of truth, so any information you have on the matter would be much appreciated!

Thanks.

2876. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183965 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 10:24 am

epeeist,

Do you see the irony. What is the point of telling me people abuse the system, which was my point, then claiming, that although true, my sources are bad. If the source is right, the source is right. The point is...... People, givent the opportunity to be indolent, will often take it. Now institutionalize and mandate the care for these social remoras and you have a dysfunctional state...

Also I want to point out (to the general audience) that Marx advocated a communal form of marriage. Laughable.

2877. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183963 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 10:16 am

MaxD,

To the point of unions. I didn't mean to say that they should be banned, but most of them in their current form, are trash. The problem is that workers should be given economic interest in the companies. It is in the interest of the company to treat employees well. Rewards work better than punishments in terms of motivation. For instance a bonus system for production levels, make 1,000 cars in a month, get $500 tacked on your salary. Etc... Or better yet help employees become part owners of the company. Treating people well IS good business.

You failed to make the necessary distinction... In capitalist countries (ones with true libertarian values)...

cheaters, embezzelars and tax evaders, or companies that need a bail out

These people are punished. People are sent to prison all the time for these crimes. I deal with the SEC in my business. They not only punish the transgressors, they often catch the innocent in the wide net they cast.

But in a socialist country, the state would be FORCED to take care of people who simply refused to work. A capitalist country is not FORCED to allow criminals to run wild. In fact almost all capitalist countries have moved in the other direction.

2878. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183960 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 10:07 am

epeeist,

I don't have a problem with unions, if they act in the interest of the greater society as well as their constituents. But once they became organizations dedicated to securing employment for the stupid and incompetent, they lost their value. I would be happy to look at a functioning union. Labor has the right to organize, it does not have the right to use this organization to destroy the education system, or the economy at large.

(*EDIT* Like I said, people must be protected from centralizations of power.)

Did I claim it was all rainbows? You need to stop getting your information on the UK from the likes of the Daily Mail by the way.

And as for defrauding the government for a living, it happens at both ends. We do have people abusing the benefits system. But we also have people evading taxes as well.

First we need to stop calling them taxes, and start calling them "dues". Like a country club, you have to pay for upkeep in order to be a member.

And you are telling me that people don't abuse the welfare system in the UK? I am very glad to hear that, not one person ever sat on welfare and continued having children? That never happened, not once? That is good to know.

Some more comments for Marx worshippers, and I include D'Arcy because he has repeatedly quoted Marx... unfortunately he didn' quote the following, also from Marx:

Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.

-On the Jewish Question
Karl Marx

Found it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_marx#Marx_and_antisemitism

What a foul and odious man. To grovel at the feet of such a disgusting worldview, one defined by nasty and grossly incorrect stereotypes. One defined by bitter hatred of human progress. How would one trust the reasoning of a mind that claimed that "The Jew" worships money. This is the intellectual doyen of socialism? No thanks.

A bitter and desultory form of pathetic anti-liberty.

2879. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183949 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 9:23 am

epeeist,

Unions once served a purpose. Now the only thing they do is destroy the economy and ensure that absolute fucking morons continue to educate children.

And the UK isn't all fluffy raimbows. You have people there who defraud the government for a living, having child afer child collecting "benefits", going socialist would make a society of this form of human scum.

I don't understand why socialists seek to reward indolence. Fucking work hard or take a hike. And if you absolutely cannot contribute to your own well being then the government can help you. But if people aren't expected to be responsible for their own life, then they aren't responsible. I do get sick of whiny socialists throwing around absolutely ridiculous theories. I have grown weary of this discussion, let's boil this theory of D'Arcy's down.... "In a perfect world, full of perfect people, where everyone agrees, we can have socialism." Fucking great, what a contribution to political thought.

Have a look at this (sarcastic) piece of legislation, maybe it will hit some chords with those who wish to actually do something like this.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/6271/gover049.html

2880. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183944 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 8:50 am

elephant,

Unions make demands, they make demands that get quite lofty. They refuse to let non-union people work in certain industries, and use a monopoly on labor to beat companies over the head (socialism is basically a big, violent, labour monopoly) and bring them to their knees. What companies end up doing is exporting the work elsewhere, which in the end causes the US to lose jobs, since those go overseas.

The worst union on the face of the planet is the California Teachers' Union. It is now, in California, impossible to fire a teacher for poor performance, or any other form of incompetence. And the result? Poor education.

They are thuggish rackets that exploit monopolies (don't socialists complain about monopolies? Oh wait they are HUGE hypocites, so never mind) to make demands that end up hurting the very people they claim to represent.

2881. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183940 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 8:33 am

Trade Unions are thuggish extortion rackets.

2882. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183938 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 8:23 am

Bonzai,

Yes, people's perceptions can be changed. But I never said we should comoditize air and water. Therefore your argument as a straw man. I was merely telling you that your understanding of price was flawed, and belies the usual socialist simplification.

2883. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183934 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 8:01 am

Bonzai,

Interesting example, except that the market only recognize price, not value.

Ooooooh swing and a miss. Price is based on perceived value.

2884. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183928 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 7:56 am

elephant,

No way. Ownership of companies can be traded on an open exchange. The prices driven by performance of the underlying companies. Derivatives can also be traded, independent contracts for buying and selling of stocks in the future based on expected performance or under performance. The stock market is simply a place where ownership in companies is exchanged between buyers and sellers.

Corporations need not be treated as people in order for this to take place. A corporation is valued (capitalized) based on the sum total of assets and liabilities. Equipment is part of the equation as is the value of the employees, this has nothing to do with the "personness" of the organization.

2885. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183924 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 7:52 am

qomak,

That is a very unfair characterization. My point wasn't to make an example of socialism, my point was to say that attempts at socialism lead to nasty, cruel, genocidal regimes.... the most bloody the world has ever seen:

Soviet
China
Khmer Rouge
Cuba

These are instantiations of the consequences of attempts at Socialism.

Your characterization of the Kibbutzim is a feather in my cap, not yours or the socialists. I have said at least 6 times that in a Capitalist society (Israel) people are free to go live communally if they so wish, and people do. The reverse situation is unacceptable to the Socialist regime.

Secondly, the Kibbutzim (as Chomsky pointed out to me) are much closer to libertarian anarchism than they are to Socialism/Communism. Although they do practice communal land ownership, the rest can largely be chalked up to anarchism and libertarianism. They also supply the pipeline for the Israeli military... many officers in all branches of the Israeli military come from the Kibbutzim.

But Socialism can work in a microcosm, where there is a stable working economy surrounding the group. And Socialism is an agrarian system. That is why Marx was pushing the de-urbanization of the country, he wanted people to retreat to rural areas. So yes, socialism might work, in a tiny microcosm, and only if you like plowing your fields with oxen and milking goats.

2886. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183919 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 7:39 am

epeeist,

Like I said, Liberty should be ensured by the state. Freedom from concentrations of power, public or private. Corporations should not be treated as entities, politically or otherwise. They shouldn't be able to contribute to political campaigns. They shouldn't be able to dodge laws. They shouldn't be treated as a "person". Corporations, that are publicly owned are different than the kind of corporation you may be thinking of. These corporations return profits to their shareholders, in the form of dividends, or in the form of appreciation of the value of the ownership share. These corporations also have voting rights, designated to shareholders.

Most people here who have retirement plans are invested in these corporations through 401k and IRA plans. The profit earned by these companies are helping numerous people to retire.

Bonzai,

I have said previously that there are numerous socialist programs that should be imported into a capitalist system, and that will happen. That is the beauty of a capitalist democracy. People can effect change in the economy, and political system. Socialism prevents this, absolutely. For instance, privatization in China was not a decision of the people (all though many people support it) it was an arbitrary decision of the government. Because in Socialist countries Big Brother... I mean the party.... I mean the government knows best.

The discipline of capitalism absolutely can't be enforced by army and violence. Captialist societies are consistently the ones who do the least violence to their own populations. Socialist countries are the one using gulags, riot police, tanks and other weapons against their own population to ensure that their system is maintained.

Have you ever noticed how it is always a narcissistic psycopath who becomes president (for life of course) in a socialist country? No doubt merely a coincidence, although it seems to coincide only with socialist countries, but I am sure it is simply an accident and has nothing to do with the ideology sucking ass.

2887. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #183910 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 7:06 am

I am not going to lie, that comment about Anna really pissed me the fuck off.

It wasn't so bad that he made the comment, but it was so annoying that he couldn't see the difference between commentary on a 1,300 year old historical figure who led his life as an open example and that of contemporary people who never comment on their personal life beyond a few general comments.

It was the insurmountable stupidity of that little turd that made me mad.

2888. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183902 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 6:30 am

epeeist,

Who said libertarianism will function well? And what libertarianism are you talking about, American or English? In my view, Libertarianism is a form of governance that protects people from centralization of power, be it public or private. So in that sense, that will definitely work, and it does work.

Socialism isn't the withering away of the state, not even close... not even remotely close.

Socialism is a pernicious dogma, on par with the "Risen Lord". The problem is that to ensure Socialism works, in D'Arcy's worldwide scheme, a state must be present to enforce socialism on those who disagree, or those with different ideas. The allocation of resources means not only giving resources to one group, but taking it away from another. Unless of course you think you can get everyone on the planet to agree to a form of governance... and that is such a fairytale that I can dismiss it out of hand. It is just plain silly. What about human nature makes you think you can get 7 billion people all in the same boat.

Right now, under a capitalist system, you and your trotskyist pals are more than welcome to get some land somewhere, live on the land, farm, milk cows, raise chickens and share equally in the produce. No one is stopping you. That is liberty, a human right. Now in a socialist state, I cannot get some land with my buddies and all develop competing industries in a capitalist microcosm. The state would have to crush this, because it would play on human nature (the desire to excel) and would attract others, the state would have to crush the competing (superior) ideologies.

Socialism is anti-liberty. It is unworkable because definitions get quite messy... Are pictures of my family communal property, is my car, are my pants, how about beer? The state must micro-manage each of these, because people can't be allowed to do so for themselves, and one certainly can't have private property.

I prefer liberty, freedom to succeed, the freedom to fail, the freedom to live how I choose. You would have to kill me before I let a bunch of socialist Nazis take my life away from me, and there are millions upon millions who feel the same, which means the creation of this ridiculous state would cause massive blood shed. And since it requires all people to agree... so long as I am alive this can never happen. So you are free to maintain this fairytale, but please don't pretend it is realistic.

2889. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183899 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 6:18 am

MaxD,

I welcome all challengers.

But he won't make much headway if he sticks to spelling errors and wikipedia citations, while completely ignoring substance and questions.

And I think... troll.

2890. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183894 by al-rawandi on May 23, 2008 at 5:50 am

Well said everyone.... except D'Arcy.... :-)

Anyhow, D'Arcy keeps yelping about "participation" when we talk about a "leviathan" state, as Phil so accurately describes it. Just because people participate, doesn't mean the government won't be huge, overbearing and unwieldy.

The problem is Socialism works for about 5 minutes. The poor get their bread, and all is well. Then shortly people would like to improve their lives a little beyond subsistence farming, but too late the government must preserve the doctrines of the "revolution", and crush the opposition.

D'Arcy's democractic theory works like this:

One man
One vote
One time.

2891. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183707 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Q,

GREAT POST! The problem with these socialists is that they think it is totally acceptable to crush liberty and freedom. They think they have a right to trample people in the pursuit of the unattainable. Socialists are the most arrogant of people.... they say:

"A state, full of bureaucrats who don't know the situation of the people, can better determine how they should live their lives then these people can determine for themselves."

I can't imagine living somewhere where I was told how to do everything.... I alread read "1984".

2892. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183703 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 2:28 pm

D'Arcy,

I don't have a problem with democracy as long as the minority groups have the liberty to pursue the right to institute changes to the system, have the freedom and liberty to lead their lives free from government dictum. The freedom to establish a way of life congruent to their beliefs with regards to personal matters and choice. It makes no established economic system, it operates congruent to an economic system it does not administer the system.

A socialist democracy is a democracy for exactly one vote and one vote only.

2893. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183702 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Socialism takes on many forms... I will briefly define some characteristics that are both necessary and consequent aspects of socialism:

-State ownership
-End to incentives
-End to private wealth
-End to the ability to determine your own course in life
-The stultification of research and development
-Enormous taxation
-Incentivization of indolence
-Punishment of ambition
-Liberty subservient to the state apparatus

If you made it a democracy, all of this still holds true, and instead intellectual minorities will suffer especially.

Socialism = End of liberty.

2894. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183693 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 2:01 pm

mordacious1,

LOL

2895. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183691 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 1:53 pm

I agree, Wikipedia is good, I like it, and if you are a credulous idiot (like greek) then it is probably dangerous, but if you have any critical thinking skills, you can probably use it to your benefit.

I found him repellent, obviously, but does everyone else consider lastgreekstanding a dumb ass?

2896. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183690 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 1:50 pm

My definition of socialism isn't at all important, yours is. I take people at their word when they say "I am a socialist" or "This country is a socialist country", now there are parameters here, but my opinion is not important.

Yours is. I have shown why yours would be a failure, a total failure. In fact you hammered the nail in the coffin for me, with

"from each according to his ability to each according to his need".

This rules out ambition, incentives, the ability to excel above and beyond your peers. There is a simple fact, people flock to the United States, from the poorest places (as well as the richest places), these people know they will have a chance to succeed. Ask any immigrant about their economic outlook and you will get a similar story (many are escaping brands of socialism). People come here to try for a dream, to try to maximize the return for their labor and/or their abilities. No system that strips this, will be effective in advancing society. The rationing of food, the rationing of resources, the abject depression... these will all be the cause of a downfuall of socialism.

The good news is your system has absolutely no chance of ever being enacted. It reminds me of the Muslims I know describing how the Islamic state is perfect, but has only to be implemented (I hear "yes there are amputations, but since there won't be poor people, no one will steal so they won't be needed"). People are not going to willingly vote their potential away to instead have rationed bread.

And just because there is a democratic election involved doesn't mean the situation will work. Kim Song Il was exceptionally popular, and look at North Korea today. Many socialist states came to power on a wave of popularity, only to fail within 5 decades.

But you proposal is so ridiculous that we are safe from such insanity.

2897. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183687 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 1:39 pm

mordacious1,

Just remember, according to Greekstanding, Wiki is useless... but it supports his theory (and your theory) of democracy.

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

The above is what the dictionary.com had to say about it.

I take the basic definition of democracy. I think the goal of democracy should be to establish common rights... this SHOULD be the goal, it should be what is sought to be the definition of the government... elected by and for the people.

2898. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183680 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 1:18 pm

mordacious1,

All people in the society have to have egual access to power, and all persons shall have egual rights and freedoms

People in England do not have equal access to power. Atheists may struggle to get elected. A Muslim could never become prime minister. Thus England is not a democracy? Wrong.

Democracy is a term that gets abused by politicos desiring to make ideological points. Democracy, coming from demos is rule by the common man, or the "mob". If it is to mean anything, it must mean that this is the definition. That common people select their leadership, and the majority gets the majority of power. What they do with this power, has everything to do with their quality of democracy, but nothing to do with their definition as a democracy.

If someone said "The UK is a shitty democracy, because it doesn't treat people fairly" I would say "Yes, that is true."

Once you demand perfectly equal treatment for all citizens be a requisite for qualification of a democracy, you set up an impossible standard, and thus no country can be a democracy. But if you were to say the country must have debate and make attempts to give people better access and more equality, I might be willing to concur.

2899. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #183670 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 1:06 pm

I have been busy here.... So I shall let another volunteer tear D'Arcy's post to shreds.

D'Arcy I will try to be more polite, but please read through that post with an eye to the efficacy of such a plan. If you really cannot see the glaring errors, that IMHO, are worthy of ridicule for their childish and unrealistic nature, then come back to me and we can chat about it. But srsly...

I will commit a quick sin and cite Thomas Aquinas and point out that Democracy is a tyranny of the majority, so a socialist system, democratically elected, would impose itself on those that disagreed. In a capitalist democracy Socialists are free to have their policies enacted.

And those countries you cite are not straw men... those are the results of attempts at socialism. Sort of like Iran is an example of an attempt at Shariah... there are plenty of Shariah supporters despite its failure, just like there are plenty of socialists despite its utter failure.

The things that drive Capitalism have been around for a very long time. Your vituperative statement trying to disprove this is just a fatuous simplification of a point well respected anthropologists would agree with.

2900. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #183666 by al-rawandi on May 22, 2008 at 12:58 pm

mesomodel,

I have created the pages for:

Mahmoud Pasikhani (English)
Mahmoud Pasikhani (Arabic)
Nuqtavi Movement (English)
Nuqtavi Movement (Arabic)

Those are reasonably obscure.

However trying to edite the Article on Sayyid Ali Muhammad Shirazi (The Bab) was exceptionally difficult, largely because the editors were a cabal of Baha'i sheeple, but I broke their will to obscure the truth of his recantation, and my edits made it in. It was a bitter weeklong battle on the discussion page but it got done. I was of course, accused of being a supporter of SAVAK, but no matter.

Despite the acrimony, things got done, and in a somewhat neutral fashion, it was a nicer tone than I would have used, but I can understand how my "tone" may not have been appropriate for Wikipedia.